UHHH the reply was to your statement of they should give back to the community instead of being a parasite. And who cares how much is tax deductble, I use every tax deduction that is legal to include my donations to charities. Stay on the same topic as you start if you can.

I'll rephrase. How about they pay that same donation total amount more for products made in U.S. Factories? Don't bother. I'll answer for you. Because they're making TONS more than that donation total and they get to brag about their charity on their website while they cause factories in middle america to close.

Finland's circumstances and mind-set aren't easily copied. "Finland is an exceptional case Europe," cautions Riisto Erasaari, professor of social policy at Helsinki University. "We are a small homogenous country, heavily state-based, and our social model as a whole is so typically Finnish that it won't travel.

So I guess if we all become lilly white state-loving Finns this might work.

I'll rephrase. How about they pay that same donation total amount more for products made in U.S. Factories? Don't bother. I'll answer for you. Because they're making TONS more than that donation total and they get to brag about their charity on their website while they cause factories in middle america to close.

Again off topic in the off-topic forum. You state something about giving back to the community, when you are provided details on the charitable donations you then ask why it was not used somewhere else. Maybe you would be happy if we had Japanese retail stores here putting those 1.33 million people from Wal-Mart out of work and on the welfare programs.

Again off topic in the off-topic forum. You state something about giving back to the community, when you are provided details on the charitable donations you then ask why it was not used somewhere else. Maybe you would be happy if we had Japanese retail stores here putting those 1.33 million people from Wal-Mart out of work and on the welfare programs.

Just so you don't feel the need to say I'm avoiding the "give back to the community" semantics. To translate what I said above, I feel giving back to the community is more profound when it creates and/or maintains good paying jobs in this Country (or 'community' if you will).

Just so you don't feel the need to say I'm avoiding the "give back to the community" semantics. To translate what I said above, I feel giving back to the community is more profound when it creates and/or maintains good paying jobs in this Country (or 'community' if you will).

OK, so we agree that they are not total parasites and do give back to the community, good.

Now, let's look at realistic ways to turn the tide and bring jobs back to the US. As I said before, buy American. When you see an American store selling something made in Mexico, Asia, Europe or wherever ask the manager if they have a similar product made in America. Will one or two people doing this change anything, no, but if we get enough people doing it to get it to the MSM it may catch on. What would it hurt to try? Other suggestions?

The article also goes on to discuss the positive aspects which are exportable.

Every bit of welfare one receives from the government has as its price the surrender of a bit of freedom. That is the American ideal that stands in opposition to the Finnish "it takes a village" philosophy. We love freedom more than security.

They may have exportable ideas - but it's one foreign import that probably won't sell here.

OK, so we agree that they are not total parasites and do give back to the community, good.

Yes they are !

Originally Posted by cardio

Now, let's look at realistic ways to turn the tide and bring jobs back to the US. As I said before, buy American. When you see an American store selling something made in Mexico, Asia, Europe or wherever ask the manager if they have a similar product made in America. Will one or two people doing this change anything, no, but if we get enough people doing it to get it to the MSM it may catch on. What would it hurt to try? Other suggestions?

Every bit of welfare one receives from the government has as its price the surrender of a bit of freedom. That is the American ideal that stands in opposition to the Finnish "it takes a village" philosophy. We love freedom more than security.

They may have exportable ideas - but it's one foreign import that probably won't sell here.

You are still in a Capitalist economy. If you want to buy other/additional coverage, you have every "freedom" to do so.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... and as shown by Finland produces a more competetive Capitalist country.

Wow! What an awesome idea! We could call it "socialism". We'd have to watch out for the more extreme believers who might kill those not of the same mind... Oh hell - let's give it a try!

And you actually called me naive in a thread yesterday! Did history start yesterday for you? Finland is obviously an anamoly. That's not to say there's no good ideas there. You seem to have a problem with freedom, though. Like it or not, the ability to keep most of the pay I receive for my work is freedom. State confiscation of 45% or more is tyranny.

Most of these issues are base human needs or aspects which must be improved for the society as a whole to improve.

Agreed. What was not clearly stated in my post, though, is that the pairs as presented generally represent a choice to be made between the two.

We need improved education. But the question is do we mandate curricular paths, or allow people to pursue their own interests? If the needs of the many outweigh the few, we must compell people to "study" trades for which ther are "best suited."

We need improved healthcare. The question is do we have general care available to everyone, or do we have specialty care? If the needs of the many outweigh the few, we must comple some to forgo their continued existence so as not to put too high a strain on the system.

We need improved job market. The question is, do we pay people high salaries and take a majority of it to feed the national kitty. If the needs of the many outweigh the few, we must compel people to forego personal prefernces and luxuries so that all can have the basics.

We need affordable goods. The question is do we have the state run the distribution and provide the basics. If the needs of the many outweigh the few, we must compel people to forfeit variety to that prices can be controlled. Accordingly, those who are properly suited for creative occupations become obsolete.

We need improved social security. The question is do we have the state provide the basic necessities. If the needs of the many outweigh the few, we must comple those who may be able to generate more wealth to forgoe the benefits of their productivity and acquiesce to the "standard" living.

It is fascinating that in one discussion we demand that the state stay out of our personal lives (sex-ed/abstinence, abortion, marriage, church/state...). yet there is a pining for the state to provide for our necessities. You can not have one without the other. If the state is providing your living, it will most assuredly determine for you what you can and can not do.

I think the key question that must be asked (as phurth has asserted): Do I cherish liberty or not?

Sure, there are aspects of communistic and/or socialistic thought that appear beneficial, however given that they are not easily separable from their ideology, one must decide is it really worth it.

Capitalistic republican (i.e. representative) government allows for charity (and thus the potential for parity). Socialism does not readily allow for individual liberty.

It is fascinating that in one discussion we demand that the state stay out of our personal lives (sex-ed/abstinence, abortion, marriage, church/state...). yet there is a pining for the state to provide for our necessities. You can not have one without the other. If the state is providing your living, it will most assuredly determine for you what you can and can not do.

Fascinating?
My first thought was... Typical Give me my living and stay out of my life Damnit!
Sounds just like my 15yr old. Come to think of it, I was also a Dem in my adolecent years....

The only freedom the left wants and is willing to fight for any longer is freedom from personal (financial, sexual, social, you name it...) responsibility. This seems to be the kernel of modern liberalism - everything else depends upon this.